Pete/all,
Where this neither damages the "pride" of the SE efforts to give all of
Java modularity eventually, having something like a "Modularity Light" for
EE via CDI sounds like a really great thing. As both an CDI EG Member and
here I fully appreciate it, and of course any help inside the EG to make
this work within the EE 7 timescale I am more than happy to contribute.
Werner
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk> wrote:
> Some feedback from Jason Porter, a colleague, on this
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think having one file to control scanning would be a great addition. In
> JBoss AS7 all the configuration was merged into one file. It took users a
> little time to get used to the change, but overall the response has been
> very positive. Having one place for scanning (and hopefully eventually one
> location for configuration of an EE application) would be very nice IMO.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk>wrote:
>
>> All
>>
>> The CDI EG is considering standardizing fine-grained control over what
>> classes within a jar module.
>>
>> The proposal today is to take the xml we defined in Weld as a starting
>> point
>> http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/latest/en-US/html/configure.html#d0e5767and standardize it, making any improvements needed on the way.
>>
>> A number of CDI EG members have suggested that it would be useful to
>> standardize this not only for CDI, but for all Java EE specs, allowing a
>> user to control, from one deployment descriptor (e.g. scan.xml) what is /
>> isn't scanned for all technologies in Java EE.
>>
>> I know David Blevins has a similar proposal, somewhere, but not sure
>> where.
>>
>> I wanted to raise this issue here, before the CDI EG goes off and does
>> this on it's own.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Pete
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>